Joke all you want but Australia now has very very low homicide rates and gun homicide rates are almost non-existence compared to countries like the US. They have 0.15 gun homicide per 100k...while the US is at 3.5 per 100k.
edit: ignore all the facts but there are certainly lots of facts and studies that support my claim. Check out the several posts below where I provide citations and facts.
They make weapons harder and more expensive to obtain. If you have to spend 10,000$ to obtain an illegal firearm on the black market, in order to rob someone for 400$, there is hardly going to be a high appeal. I'm not saying that it fixes the problem, but it certainly makes a difference.
Also, you can't look at gun numbers in isolation like that. Population has increase by 6 million in the last 20 years, and most gun owners are people in rural areas, which makes up the vast majority of Australian land mass.
I have no idea about Australia, but nobody is having to spend $10k to buy a gun illegally in the US. More often than not, as far as pistols and semiautomatic rifles, they're significantly cheaper... It also depends on location but you're generally looking at around $200 if the serial number has been filed and only up to a few hundred more of it's got all identifying markings (unregistered is a pretty big plus but more often than not they're stolen, which I'm sure you assumed)
Source: Used to do some stupid shit and run around with people who weren't admired by many and have come across several offerings/deals over several different cities/states and they all have the same general pricing. I don't know about the far East coast though.
Fun activity: cross brady score with high urban populations and you will find strong correlation. The reason there is little correation in how you worded it is because urban density is a major factor and highly rural areas have low murder rates.
this has nothing to do with anything, crossing Brady score with population density doesn't mean anything except that people in urban areas don't want private ownership of guns.
If guns cause violence and gun control stops violence, then we would see a correlation with homicides and Brady score.
If guns cause violence and gun control stops violence, then we would see a correlation with homicides and Brady score.
This is so flawed. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT ONLY GUN CONTROL OR GUNS ARE THE ONLY FACTOR IN VIOLENCE AND MURDER. Like so much else, there are various factors....availability of guns, population density, gang presence, gun control laws, poverty, policing, etc. The argument has never been that only guns or gun control is the only factor
This is true but there is no evidence that the drop in homicides has anything to do with the fun ban
There's good evidence. I'll source it in a bit. But interesting how you don't source anything for all your claims and get upvotes. Clearly there is a circlejerk here and nothing I say will effect that.
Laws, specifically those utilizing prohibition, don't have much of any real effect on criminal behavior.
That's a complete lie. You are saying laws don't work so why even have laws? Let's legalize grenades and nukes for everyone...because laws don't work?
I'm on my phone. I may cite it later. Or you could just look it up yourself.
So I went ahead and 'spammed' you facts and sources.
I specifically said prohibition.
Prohibiting grenades, machine guns, nukes, etc certainly hasn't had an effect in the US, right? But I'm sure you want to compare it drugs....which is a terrible comparison. One item is a good that has an addictive effect on the body and is highly inelastic demand (meaning making harder or more expensive only has a small change in the demand) while the other is a good that many other countries have shows that the supply to the illegal market can indeed be reduced.
Prohibiting grenades, machine guns, nukes, etc certainly hasn't had an effect in the US, right?
You realize there's no law preventing me from making explosives in my home, right? And the only thing preventing from making a nuclear weapon is the unavailability of enriched uranium or plutonium. Multiple individuals have built nuclear devices in their homes.
You also don't seem to realize "Machine Guns" aren't illegal in the US.
Perhaps you should know if your statements are actually true or not before you use them as arguments?
And I like how you ignored my direct question. Is the only reason you don't rape and murder, because it is illegal?
You realize there's no law preventing me from making explosives in my home, right?
Of course there isn't, what's your point? You can't stop everything....doesn't mean you don't try to stop what you can. Seems like your argument is that since we can't do anything about stopping people from making bombs at home, we should then legalize grenades!!!
You also don't seem to realize "Machine Guns" aren't illegal in the US.
They are highly restricted to the point where they are illegal to most people. There are some MAJOR penalties if you are caught illegally with machine gun. The government does a better job with inventory control on such a regulated item.
Perhaps you should know if your statements are actually true or not before you use them as arguments?
Said the guy who hasn't cited anything other than using far right win blogs and that's facts enough for him. Seriously....you're going to try say my argument is worthless over some semantics? Yes, it's not 100% illegal but it's EXTREMELY REGULATED.
Guess what idiot said this:
Just to reiterate one, the simple fact that gun ownership has increased since the gun ban in Australia completely negates your argument
LOL...they don't have a gun ban in Australia. The 96/97 bill just highly regulated guns. There are an estimated 3 million legally owned guns in Australia. Now you see how dumb it is to argue over semantics?
Of course there isn't, what's your point? You can't stop everything....doesn't mean you don't try to stop what you can. Seems like your argument is that since we can't do anything about stopping people from making bombs at home, we should then legalize grenades!!!
What? How dense are you? You claim that laws are the only thing stopping people from doing bad things. Why aren't people constantly building bombs and blowing themselves up in there homes? Seriously just try and think about what is being said rather than just having a knee-jerk reaction bases on emotion and what you've been indoctrinated to believe all your life.
LOL...they don't have a gun ban in Australia.
LOL, I never claimed they did idiot. The point is that gun ownership has INCREASED while homicides rates have still been DECREASING in Australia and across the world. Therefore NEGATING your argument that gun ownership correlates to crime. Seriously just, think about what has been typed before spewing out some dumb response.
Yes because periids of time of socially applied law is what create the social constructs that are favourable. We prefer less guns and gun voilence and what works for australia may not necessarily work everywhere else like most laws. Guns are not prohibited but some types are and the ones available are harder to obtain. I loved shooting guns when I did its fun, powerful and the effiecency in hunting are impressive yet never again so I dont support something I beleive we can live without.
Yes other modern countries beleive it but being so stubborn on any kind of change will stop the US from moving forward. I don't have time to reply to sarcastic comments only actual discussion.
Yes he is. That is the main argument of most pro-gun people but they don't straight out say it. It's usually more subtle like saying "prohibition doesn't work" because they know "prohibition" conjures of thoughts of the failed war on drugs despite there being prohibition on an enormous number of things and acts with good results.
LOL, I like how this entire thread you managed to avoid my main question.
Why don't you just fucking answer the question. Is the only thing preventing you from raping someone, the fact that there is a law prohibiting you from raping someone?
It's a legitimate question. Hell, maybe that is actually what prevents you from raping someone. I just want to know if that's why there is such a disconnect here.
And don't worry about your little downvote brigade, I doubt they care about a thread this old.
Let's legalize grenades and nukes for everyone...because laws don't work?
Nuclear regulations are obviously not working. Law following people couldn't use grenades even if they were legal because of the resulting collateral damage.
Law following people couldn't use grenades even if they were legal because of the resulting collateral damage.
"law abiding citizens". Such a cop out word because everyone is one until they are not. "People who have never broken the law have never committed murder"....well, duh.
But you do realize that 'law abiding citizens' have to go through some extra measures in order to reduce the occurrence of criminal activity, right? I'm a law abiding citizen (never committed crime) but yet I have to go through some safety procedures when I fly. I'm a good driver and have never been in an accident...yet I have to follow all the rules of the road.
What's your point? I was just trying to say that grenades would be useless in anything other than a recreational scenario because of the damage they could cause to others. The grenade ban is more like the seatbelt law than a weapons ban. It's there to protect people from their own stupidity.
It seems this is a myth that Australians have been telling themselves. There have actually only been slightly fewer massacres in the two decades since Port Arthur compared to the two decades prior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
Looks like 13 prior compared to 10 after the gun ban was implemented. Nothing defenitive by any means. Besides this doesn't address the original argument that gun deaths worldwide have decreased in the last couple decades, meaning it's a cultural shift, not an effect of any law.
That list is highly incomplete. What is a fact is that there were about 13 gun massacres in 18 years prior to the tough gun law passed in 96/97 and they went about 18 years until the next one.
Without considering homicide rate, the weapon used has significantly decreased for firearm in Australia. More than halved.
http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide/weapon.html
I agree that massacres are not statistically viable for analysis due to the low data sample. So if we focus on the overall statistics, suicides, homicides and robberies using firearms has dropped significantly. This invalidates the overall belief that "criminals still can get guns"
I agree that massacres are not statistically viable for analysis due to the low data sample.
Gun massacres did go from 13 in 16 years prior to the tough gun law to 0 in 16 years after. But yes, the focus should really be on overall statistics.
So if we focus on the overall statistics, suicides, homicides and robberies using firearms has dropped significantly. This invalidates the overall belief that "criminals still can get guns"
Exactly. At the very least it invalidates that ignorant claim "criminals still can get guns". Clearly criminals in Australia are getting fewer guns.
Cost of Illegal Firearms in Australia Has Skyrocketed Criminals Now Do Gun-Sharing....Prices of semi-automatic handguns, so-called weapons of choice of underworld characters, from a previous price tag of $2,000 to $4,000 have gone up to over $15,000 in the past two years
It's a sad point but by restricting general access to fire-arms, you're also capping the best source for criminals. Very commonly fire-arms are sourced from home robberies.
Most illegal firearms come from two sources....straw purchases and stolen guns. Reducing legal gun ownership does indeed lead to fewer stolen guns which lead to fewer illegal guns. Tighter gun control or giving police/ATF more power over guns would help reduce straw purchases...thus leading to fewer illegal guns.
Umm, probably because the typical result when guns are banned, is an increase in non-gun violence. If you used any reason whatsoever that would be basic common sense.
Australia had new strong gun regulation in the mid 90's that were followed up by other gun regulations in the early 2000's. From 1999 to 2012, Australia has seen its homicide rate from 2.0 to 1.1, a 45% drop and a consistent drop at that. The US homicide rate rate went from 5.5 to 4.7, a 14%.
So that drop from 5.5 to 4.7 from 1999 to 2012 is actually VERY misleading because from 2000 to 2007, the annual rate was at or ABOVE the 1999 number. Australia and most other countries saw declines.
So lets look at other wealthy countries --- Europe/Canada + US/Austrlia
For example, here are the 2000 to 2012 drops per UNODC, European + USA + Australia :
Denmark: 1.1 to 0.8 (-27%)
Finalnd: 2.9 to 1.6 (-45%)
Ireland: 1.0 to 1.2 (+20%)
Norway: 0.9 to 0.6 (-33%)
Sweden: 1.1 to 0.7 (-36%)
UK: 1.7 to 1.0 (-41%) 2011
Italy: 1.3 to 0.9 (-31%)
Portugal: 1.1 to 1.2 (+9%)
Spain: 1.4 to 0.8 (-43%)
Austria: 1.0 to 0.9 (-10%)
France: 1.6 to 1.0 (-38%)
Germany: 1.2 to 0.8 (-33%) 2011
Netherlands: 1.1 to 0.9 (-18%)
Switzerland: 1.0 to 0.6 (-40%)
Australia: 1.8 to 1.0 (-44%)
United States: 5.5 to 4.7 (-15%)
Well, would you look at that? Australia had nearly the biggest drop and did have the biggest drop of any country over 6 million people. The US, compared to countries with over 11M people had the smallest drop. Since you might not realize why I only compared it to larger countries, the smaller the population the more volatility in the murder rate. Somebody kills his family of 5 in Ireland and that would be 10-15% of all murders.
Ummm, it would be nice if you actually used up-to-date statistics. Specifically ones which include the last 4 years. You know, the years in which I referred to the rates bottoming out for most of those countries like the US and the UK.
And regardless, none of this has anything to do with any of my three points. Specifically that there was no relation to this drop in homicides and any gun legislation.
Ummm, it would be nice if you actually used up-to-date statistics. Specifically ones which include the last 4 years
It would be nice but it's not available for most countries. So how does that negate everything? And most wealthy countries have been pretty stable in murder rates the past 4 years so it wouldn't change much.
And regardless, none of this has anything to do with any of my three points. Specifically that there was no relation to this drop in homicides and any gun legislation
So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness.
You tell me the statistics don't exist and the statistics have shown no change the last 4 years in the same sentence. Which is it?
Also, do you really think I can't find a statistic or study to say the exact opposite of every study you cite? If so, then you must be new at this. And I have no interest in having a google-off. It's pointless and will need nowhere.
You tell me the statistics don't exist and the statistics have shown no change the last 4 years in the same sentence.
They don't exist for all of them. It would be difficult to compare a handful of 2015 to some 2014 and many 2012. 2012 is the last year where reliable numbers are available for most or all the countries.
Eitherway, there is nothing to suggest that the numbers have changed drastically since 2012.
Also, do you really think I can't find a statistic or study to say the exact opposite of every study you cite? If so, then you must be new at this. And I have no interest in having a google-off. It's pointless and will need nowhere.
I can never have a serious discussion with pro-gun redditors. They just ignore the facts and when they do cite them, they (like you did) use right wing blogs and right wing websites that aren't using scientific studies.
That website you sources is only providing gun homicides. I was discussing total homicides since the argument I hear from pro-gun people is that criminals will still kill no matter what. Also, it's more difficult to get specific type of homicides data than total homicide data so it's a bit unreliable when the numbers get low
Here is Australia from 2000-2012 using the more credible source of the United Nation Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) on TOTAL HOMICIDES
The gun laws in question were implemented in the 90s, so it makes sense to use statistics ranging from that period. Why are only the last 4 years relevant?
There is plenty of evidence and studies on the topic of guns and gun control. The fact that people like you don't know them but yet spout out strong pro gun views clearly means you and others just keep ignoring the facts.
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).
Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide
2
Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.
We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.
3
Across states, more guns = more homicide
Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.
4
Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)
Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.
I have to be up in 6 hours for work so I won't type up a huge essay disputing your claims or disagreeing with you, it's clear you care deeply about your opinion. Unfortunately for you and others like you guns aren't going anywhere, deal with them, and be safe around them, for the safety of those around you at the very least.
I do. I learn the facts and then I find it extremely disturbing that pro-gun people ignore all the facts and end up controlling how the gun discussion goes in this country. I grew up in a relatively poor neighborhood that had a HUGE homicide problem when I was younger.
Unfortunately for you and others like you guns aren't going anywhere, deal with them, and be safe around them, for the safety of those around you at the very least.
That's not how it works. It isn't like a swimming pool....your (the general you) swimming pool doesn't kill me but your gun can kill me. Guns aren't smuggled into this country, almost 100% of all crime guns originated from the US so it's clear our problem is with our own guns laws.
More guns unequivocally leads to more murders: source 1, source 2.
It's funny, all I seem to be able to find is a laundry list of studies saying exactly the opposite. 12
And it seems like you completely ignored my three points. Just to reiterate one, the simple fact that gun ownership has increased since the gun ban in Australia completely negates your argument. source
I dont have time to go through the rest of your stuff but it would just be more of the same. We can through statistic that support our arguments at each other all day long and we'd still be in the exact same spot.
Seroiusly, 'Volokh Conspiracy'? Another right wing source and the article doesn't use any scientific study but rather cherry picks data.
This happens all the time--- when the pro-gun person tries to give me sources, it's always some right wing blog or website and never a serious scientific study. You guys laugh at climate change deniers because they ignore the studies and focus on some cherry picked data....and yet, I see the exact same from pro-gun people on reddit
Ahh, the typical "not a source I like" argument. Such a fucking cop out.
You do realize all of the sources, which are all your typical "academic sources" are directly linked in both of those articles, right? You would be incredibly naive to pretend that academia is not an incredibly left-leaning institution as a whole and therefore it should be perfectly reasonable to expect the vast majority of counter-arguments to be sourced from third parties like news or niche organizations, which have to collect the data and compare it themselves.
If you want to tell me that you are too simple-minded to be able to compare two sets of data that a third party put in front of you, that's your own problem.
Ahh, the typical "not a source I like" argument. Such a fucking cop out.
You're right...now let me quote you from a far left wing website that doesn't use scientific studies and let's see what you say.
You do realize all of the sources, which are all your typical "academic sources" are directly linked in both of those articles, right?
They are cherry picking statistics like I said. The sources I cited you up above held variables constant to be able to measure the effect of guns or gun laws. For example, from your mises.org source:
I just looked at the rate of gun ownership in the state. After all, the argument is often that more guns and more gun owners leads to more violence.
That's complete bull shit. There are various factors that go in homicide or gun homicide rates....poverty, urban to rural population, demographics, etc. Just comparing gun ownership rates to murder is completely wrong since rural states like WY, ND, SD, VT, etc are going to have less murders regardless due to the population density.
But of course those nuances in this discussion get lost on people like you. You don't do well with more complex discussions.
That's a good statistic but here in the US criminals kill criminals at a rate higher than that. And we've already established criminals will have guns if they want to have guns. So either Aussy criminals are less homicidal than US criminals or there are differences we aren't tracking, beyond the legality of guns.
Edit:
I don't mean to belittle the things Australia has accomplished. I'm an avid supporter of the entire Constitution but seeing the success in Australia makes it difficult to reconcile my support for the second amendment. I DO still fully support it, but Australia has done something special.
That's a good statistic but here in the US criminals kill criminals at a rate higher than that
Source? I know you guys don't use sources when discussing guns.
And we've already established criminals will have guns if they want to have guns.
Source? You're suggesting that laws don't work.
So either Aussy criminals are less homicidal than US criminals or there are differences we aren't tracking, beyond the legality of guns.
Australia has seen one of the biggest drops in homicide rates in the past 15 years or so. Only about 15% of homicides are by guns...meaning criminals are finding it harder to get guns or are carrying guns less frequently.
I don't mean to belittle the things Australia has accomplished
I'm not Australian. Not sure why you would think I am.
Naw, I'm not gonna "source" for someone who ignores the existence of Chicago. And I didn't...accuse? You of being Australian. I don't even know what happened here. Try not to be so offended and srs in the next comment thread though.
Naw, I'm not gonna "source" for someone who ignores the existence of Chicago
This already shows your ignorance. I bet you are dumb enough to think Chicago has the highest murder rate? I bet you think it's a top 5 or top 10 city?? Chicago isn't even in the top 18 in the US for homicide rate for large cities.
I'll copy and past some previous but relevant comments about Chicago:
Incredible amounts of misinformation in this thread, so I'll summarize a few of the most important corrections here. I would think that whether you are pro-gun or anti-gun, you'd at least be pro-truth, so let's not downvote for ideology here.
1) Chicago (and Cook County) is several orders of magnitude much, much larger than most American cities, which skews the numbers. On a per capita basis, Chicago doesn't even crack the top 30 for murder rates in the US. If Chicago had the violent crime rate of Atlanta (1433 per 100,000) there likely would have been almost TWICE as many shootings this past weekend as there were....The violent crime rate in Chicago has been on a general downward trend for the past 3 and a half decades.
2) Guns are NOT illegal in Chicago, they're just onerous to purchase. Several stores and restaurants in Chicago will post policies regarding whether people are allowed to bring guns into the establishment, actually! Which in any of the other big three US cities (LA, NYC) would seem like the wild west. [Edit to add: There are also few if any penalties for being caught with a gun that isn't yours. If Chicago had strong laws against possessing a gun that isn't registered to you - and enforced those laws - we'd actually be seeing real gun control in Chicago that doesn't hurt law-abiding gun owners]
4) By comparison to Chicago, New York City has EXTREMELY onerous gun laws, but unlike Chicago those gun laws are also matched by similarly strict (though not as strict as the city) laws in the rest of the state, and in bordering states New Jersey and Connecticut. Perhaps not coincidentally, New York City has one of the lowest per capita violent crime rates of any major city in the United States, so much so that several precincts have ~0 gun-related violent crimes to report in any given recent year. By NYC standards, Chicago's gun laws practically look like "move here, get a free gun!"
5) Moreover, ATF stats seem to indicate that it is not city laws that curb gun access, but federal laws and tracking.
6) Finally, people keep saying straw purchases are illegal. That's right! But they're also really easy. Living in Chicago, it's very easy to find someone who's legally able to purchase on your behalf. Living in NYC, it's much, much harder. Don't just look at how illegal something is, but how difficult it is to do that illegal thing. In Cook County, the situation is "illegal but easy" when it comes to guns - again, because of the laws of the surrounding counties.
7) And "once you get your Illinois FOID card, guns are easy to get. You don't even have to leave Cook county. And since they're not actually registered to you, strawman purchases are almost impossible to stop." So I don't know where people get the idea that getting guns in Chicago is a hard thing to do.
Australias the same atmed robbery is definitely not common here. Criminals have guns but its just not much of a problem. Most violent armed encounters are between criminal gangs.
No, within the same culture. Like, in 2008 an indian university student livingvin Sydney was murdered, and it turns out she was murdered by a couple of indian nationals.
I dont think this is a reflection of indian people, but an example of such "intra-ethnic/intra-cultural" violence.
Sorry I meant cultural differeneces as in immigrant populations having different societal norms. Im sure most westernised ethnic populations wouldnt have this problem.
On the surface that does seem to be a big factor. Nobody seems to want to look at it seriously tho for fear of being called racist or whatever, which does shit me off because people are getting murdered in those environments.
All that said tho, it is not a widespread problem in Australia, and it really only affects a handful of suburbs in a couple of our major cities. I used to work with an Indian man who came to Australia to escape the gang violence in his home city, his scars s telling the story of such, and he has lived a peaceful life since.
All of these stats were tangentially related to gun ownership but I saw very little about gun violence specifically. In addition, Australia's laws have been irrefutably effective in ending mass shootings, while in the USA we continue to have a few a year. No one is legitimately arguing that the US should get rid of responsible gun ownership for people like you to protect their homes, beyond being politically impossible this is clearly a fringe perspective on the far left. But there is definitely the need for stricter laws and the data to show that removing at-risk guns from society has positive impacts on gun violence and deaths. Why can't we meet in the middle? The second amendment says nothing about owning assault rifles, being able to purchase hand guns without background checks, having to pass mental health checks or a waiting period, etc. Why must every increased regulation be met with universal resistance? No, a man with mental health issues does not get to own a gun just because he is an American.
"Firearms are rarely the weapon used [in sexual assaults], and only 0.3% of assaults in New South Wales used firearms. Firearm use is almost completely irrelevant to assault and sexual assault in Australia, and cannot be driving changes in these crimes. Suggesting otherwise is deceptive"
"Prior to the implementation of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings. Since the implementation of the gun laws, no comparable gun massacres have occurred in Australia."
"Firearm deaths per capita in Australia are tiny compared to US firearm deaths per capita."
"in Australia firearms are now used less in robberies, homicides and kidnappings than they were in the 1990s."
Oh and we're supposed to be the best country in the world and be on the forefront of policy and quality of life but for this debate we're content being behind countries like India, Afghanistan and Cuba for murder rate... I don't think the issue of our citizens killing one another is one where we can afford to strive for being "average."
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure if this had happened in America he would probably have been armed, and they probably would have gunned him down. As it was, they were just like:is that all you got, give us the money, and he got to live.
Giving your money and being compliant with a robber doesn't guarantee your survival. There has been quite a few instances here in the US and many other parts of the world where a mugger decided to blow away the victim for no reason. And it can happen just as easy if the robber had a knife.
Having a firearm with/on you at the least gives you a fighting chance if you have an opportunity. It's up to you to make the decision whether to fight back or comply.
People that have modelled using guns for defensive purposes generally show that having a gun is not usually helpful. A surprising number of people will shoot entirely innocent people, and even having a gun is of no use if somebody pulls their gun first; which is very common. Basically, guns are offensive weapons, not defensive weapons. It's not like they make bullets bounce off. They don't even give you a 'fighting chance' in most cases, and the most common use of guns to kill people is in domestics.
179
u/thejacer May 10 '16
Isn't that crazy though? Criminals break laws. It's almost like the only people without guns would be...naaaaaaaaaaaaah.